• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Extends Fed Benefits to Unmarried Partners, Including Same Sex Partners

Gosh. And here I thought that most people handled that pretty well on their own.

I'll have to call my ex-husband and let him know that the REAL reason our marriage failed was "teh gayz."

And for some reason I'm still married despite the fags. Weird. I guess what other people do really does not affect my marriage. I think someone tried to tell me that once, but I couldn't hear them with all those Bible's thumping in the background.
 
Gosh. And here I thought that most people handled that pretty well on their own.

I'll have to call my ex-husband and let him know that the REAL reason our marriage failed was "teh gayz."

No no no the reason you got divorced is because of my cohabitation with my girlfriend.
 
I AGREE.

It's bull**** that he's pushing this when the rights are not equivalent and he's done nothing for military service personnel to overturn don't ask, don't tell, in spite of HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES.

Apparently, gays/lesbians are the ones on the plantation now, and Pres Obama can dole out special "house nigga" privileges without giving them any real EQUALITY.

I believe he's playing political games and using his "political capital" to push through healthcare reform first, and then tackle civil rights issues.

That's my hope, anyway. I doubt he'd just turn his back on the gay community and lose a lot of support for 2012 on purpose.
 
"President Barack Obama, whose gay and lesbian supporters have grown frustrated with his slow movement on their priorities, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees but stopping short of a guarantee of full health insurance, a White House official said."

AP source: Benefits for govt workers' gay partners - Yahoo! News

I have also heard that the plan does not include pension benefits. It does come with group hugs though.

Side note: I wonder if there is any legislation that allows for Obama to do this. I am sure the legislation passed by Congress specified benefits for people legally married, and that excludes all gays because of the Defense of Marriage Act.

I think Obama knows this will never actually happen, the benefits will not be valid because gays are not legally married under federal law, or the courts will strike it down because it needs to go through the legislative process.

I am not falling for it until I see some real results. Obama may be a brilliant person when it come to political maneuvering, but that does not mean anything actually happens.

By the way, this ruling ONLY affects Federal Employees.
 
The White House claims the order is being done within the laws already created.

"The Memorandum follows a review by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management ant the Secretary of State regarding what benefits may be extended to the same-sex partners of federal employees in the civil service and the foreign service within the confines of existing federal laws and statutes."

We will have to wait until later today to possibly see what law the President is using to extend benefits to domestic partners, when he formally signs the order. If the order is promulgated based on an existing law, it is well within the President's authority.

The White House - Press Office - Fact Sheet Presidential Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non Discrimination
 
Last edited:
I believe he's playing political games and using his "political capital" to push through healthcare reform first, and then tackle civil rights issues.

That's my hope, anyway. I doubt he'd just turn his back on the gay community and lose a lot of support for 2012 on purpose.

That will not happen. You think they are going to vote GOP? I think not. It's like the religious right and the GOP. The GOP can play them for fools election after election because they are not going to vote Democrat. If there are two groups Obama can back burner with no ill effects it's the blacks and the gays.
 
Oh I'm just wondering what meteric you use to define a stable relationship. 40% of cohabitors break up yet there is a 50% divorce rate. Seems like cohabitation is the way to go.

You say that like the 50% divorce rate is composed of first-marriages under the same situations.

In fact, the 50% divorce rate is caused by things which 'the right' speaks against in other venues, such as marrying someone with small children, marrying without financial security, and pre-marital cohabitation lowering the commitment of the couple.

Even assuming gays could "marry" today, no different in any respect than heteros can, an unmarried couple should not be receiving any benefits simply for being a 'couple' because that promotes unstable unions.
 
How will the government be able to judge what a "domestic partnership" is? How will it prevent people from taking advantage of the system?
 
Gosh. And here I thought that most people handled that pretty well on their own.

I'll have to call my ex-husband and let him know that the REAL reason our marriage failed was "teh gayz."

Oh, it's the gays doing it? Darn, I was hoping it was just me for supporting the gays...
 
That will not happen. You think they are going to vote GOP? I think not. It's like the religious right and the GOP. The GOP can play them for fools election after election because they are not going to vote Democrat. If there are two groups Obama can back burner with no ill effects it's the blacks and the gays.

I never mentioned who they would vote for. We do have more than two parties, you know? He could even do so poorly that in four years he doesn't seek re-election, but I suppose in that case what a small part of the Democratic base does doesn't really matter.
 
Gosh. And here I thought that most people handled that pretty well on their own.

I'll have to call my ex-husband and let him know that the REAL reason our marriage failed was "teh gayz."

I see the Liberals of the forum still want to claim that this is all about marriage failures and NOT about the real purpose for two people to enter into a committed relationship for the purpose of creating children.

It's so easy to be a Liberal; you just have to care and FEEL others pain, demagogue your opponents with hyperbole and BS and never have to deal with the REAL moral dilemmas these decisions have or ever actually solve anything.

I'll try again; when you break down the basic fabric of a secure TWO parent family structure, eventually the entire society will break down; the facts are there, you just need to "open" those tightly closed eyes.

P.S. Before some of you rabid foaming at the mouth Liberals start jumping on me as some “right” wing “Christian” nut, nothing could be further from the truth. I haven’t attended a church since I was a teen. But I do have a brain and a modicum of common sense and a historical perspective. (not directed at the person I am responding to YET)
 
How will the government be able to judge what a "domestic partnership" is? How will it prevent people from taking advantage of the system?

They will do it the same way private companies do. It's not rocket science. And for the record, my employer never checked to see if I was actually married. So for all they know I am taking advantage of them.
 
How will the government be able to judge what a "domestic partnership" is? How will it prevent people from taking advantage of the system?

It's not about actually solving problems, it is about pandering to voters with little or no thought put to the issue silly. :cool:
 
I never mentioned who they would vote for. We do have more than two parties, you know? He could even do so poorly that in four years he doesn't seek re-election, but I suppose in that case what a small part of the Democratic base does doesn't really matter.

We have more than two parties? How much do you want to bet that 90%+ of the gay vote goes to Obama in 2012 no matter what he does? More than two parties indeed. Please.
 
Even assuming gays could "marry" today, no different in any respect than heteros can, an unmarried couple should not be receiving any benefits simply for being a 'couple' because that promotes unstable unions.

No one should be receiving these benefits.
 
I see the Liberals of the forum still want to claim that this is all about marriage failures and NOT about the real purpose for two people to enter into a committed relationship for the purpose of creating children.

It's so easy to be a Liberal; you just have to care and FEEL others pain, demagogue your opponents with hyperbole and BS and never have to deal with the REAL moral dilemmas these decisions have or ever actually solve anything.

I'll try again; when you break down the basic fabric of a secure TWO parent family structure, eventually the entire society will break down; the facts are there, you just need to "open" those tightly closed eyes.

P.S. Before some of you rabid foaming at the mouth Liberals start jumping on me as some “right” wing “Christian” nut, nothing could be further from the truth. I haven’t attended a church since I was a teen. But I do have a brain and a modicum of common sense and a historical perspective. (not directed at the person I am responding to YET)

Most excellent! I am now promoting the destruction of society!
 
You say that like the 50% divorce rate is composed of first-marriages under the same situations.

In fact, the 50% divorce rate is caused by things which 'the right' speaks against in other venues, such as marrying someone with small children, marrying without financial security, and pre-marital cohabitation lowering the commitment of the couple.

Even assuming gays could "marry" today, no different in any respect than heteros can, an unmarried couple should not be receiving any benefits simply for being a 'couple' because that promotes unstable unions.

Exactly. What's the point in getting married if just being in a "domestic partnership" is the same thing, except you can leave at any time? Like when your girlfriend turns out to be pregnant?
 
We have more than two parties? How much do you want to bet that 90%+ of the gay vote goes to Obama in 2012 no matter what he does? More than two parties indeed. Please.

Obama got only 70% of the gay vote in 2008, why should that change?
 
No one should be receiving these benefits.

Why? In oder to compete for talent the government needs to offer competitive pay and benefits. We always (rightly) complain about how bad government workers are. Eliminating benefits from government jobs will only make that worse.
 
How will the government be able to judge what a "domestic partnership" is? How will it prevent people from taking advantage of the system?

I will continue to ask -- what are the parameters of these benefits? What does a couple have to do qualify for these benefits?

Truth? Jerry?
 
Even assuming gays could "marry" today, no different in any respect than heteros can, an unmarried couple should not be receiving any benefits simply for being a 'couple' because that promotes unstable unions.

Uhmmm jerry gays do get married everyday all across this great nation and some states even recognize this fact.
 
I see the Liberals of the forum still want to claim that this is all about marriage failures and NOT about the real purpose for two people to enter into a committed relationship for the purpose of creating children.

What I object to is married couples getting these welfare benefits at the taxpayers expense.
 
I will continue to ask -- what are the parameters of these benefits? What does a couple have to do qualify for these benefits?

Truth? Jerry?

I asked you a question to clarify your request, care to answer it?
 
Back
Top Bottom